Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Sorry I didn't mean to, but my point is that when you sell something for a low price people don't value it. If the price is higher they value it more and tend to get more enjoyment from it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LRRP

Hey I have a 2 year old Kia I bought new for $14,000 it had some engine issues and would just shut down for no reason. I am offering it on sale today for $15,000 and it has 30,000 miles on it. Just trying to add some humor in this thread. LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Lol! Well Kia enough said. Sorry my friend. You did what matrix/slitherine didn't do and that is research the market .

quote:

ORIGINAL: LRRP

Hey I have a 2 year old Kia I bought new for $14,000 it had some engine issues and would just shut down for no reason. I am offering it on sale today for $15,000 and it has 30,000 miles on it. Just trying to add some humor in this thread. LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan

Some facts are not entirely correct.

PoN was never sold at 1.50$. It was at 4.95 several times when we had -75% off sales. The average amount of money we got for a game was about 13$ (after the distributor cuts).

We based the pricing on what we know usually nets a decent amount of sales, but the game had some problems which made it impossible to turn a profit.

a) It was enormously costly in development, even disregarding the costs AGEOD had before we bought them, we still had to fund another 18 months of development in total on the game.

b) The game had really bad reviews, 70 at metacritic is a kiss of death.

c) Bad word of mouth, due to awkward interfaces, and very slow game-turns.

And when a game can not even sell 10,000 copies in the first 3 months, it does not matter what you price it.


When it comes to sales...

If a game is accessible and had decent enough reviews, then when you sell at a discount at steam, you sell somewhere about 20-50x what you usually sell in a month in revenue. Pride of Nations never managed to do that for us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko
I put the games failure right in your lap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan

In hindsight, the game should have been cancelled when we knew how bad Rise of Prussia was doing, and we saw the risks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

Interesting assessment.

So the lesson is: if TBS then only WW2, Rome, Nappy?!

I wonder how Slitherixod will handle PON and what games Ageod will make in the future, apart from AACW2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
the games are both good but the business model just was not appropriate. These detailed games are never going to sell to a mass market, but they do make money. They have their niche and this is where they need to stay. In their niche they can command reasonable price that makes development sustainable and profitable. They do not need to sell 10,000 units in 3 months to break even.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
The tail is much much longer on these games and 2-5 years on you can still get significant revenues if you keep faith, support them and don't heavily discount

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Paradox has slowly drifted out of the strategy games market and is now targeting the mainstream with games like Magicka which has been a great success for you guys. The business model that suits this move just doesn't fit these detailed strategy games very well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Good luck and hope it all goes well for you!

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I thought Johan was quite calm considering it had been implied the pricing was to be considered illegal..

I'm not sure this niche thing holds up so well in the cold light of day..certain battles\wars maybe considered niche but not strategy games as awhole. I also have a feeling developers are put off from doing anything to far out there when it comes to the era they choose because of fears it wont sell so well. Yet I thought that was why the pricing was the way it was, due to low sales and it being a niche market.

Still nothing will change SLitherines stance here..so it's beating a dead horse.

I still support you in what you do and I'm looking forward to future releases..however when it comes to pricing of old\older games I just can't agree with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

You almost make me feel guilty for buying this game at 1.99. I did mess around with it and told myself no big loss. I see I have missed some updates for this game. And what you say is also true about life in general....to get out what you but in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Rogo remind what price you bough the game at.

One of the things we have found is that demos for these huge games don't work well. The reason is that these games take a lot of effort to get you going. You need to put in the time to get something out but when you do you're rewarded with an extremely deep and fulfilling experience. When you pay for something you're willing to invest that time and push through a certain amount of frustration. When you get something for free you are much more likely to give up at the first hurdle or point of frustration as you've lost nothing. Someone who would enjoy the game if they paid for it, does not enjoy it if they get it for free as they never get into it enough.

Taking that a step further, someone who only paid a few dollars for the game is less likely to put in the effort required to get the most out of it. I'm wondering if this is where you are right now. If you had paid $24.99 would you have persisted when you gave up because you paid less?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

You almost make me feel guilty for buying this game at 1.99. I did mess around with it and told myself no big loss. I see I have missed some updates for this game. And what you say is also true about life in general....to get out what you but in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Rogo remind what price you bough the game at.

One of the things we have found is that demos for these huge games don't work well. The reason is that these games take a lot of effort to get you going. You need to put in the time to get something out but when you do you're rewarded with an extremely deep and fulfilling experience. When you pay for something you're willing to invest that time and push through a certain amount of frustration. When you get something for free you are much more likely to give up at the first hurdle or point of frustration as you've lost nothing. Someone who would enjoy the game if they paid for it, does not enjoy it if they get it for free as they never get into it enough.

Taking that a step further, someone who only paid a few dollars for the game is less likely to put in the effort required to get the most out of it. I'm wondering if this is where you are right now. If you had paid $24.99 would you have persisted when you gave up because you paid less?

Well no, surely the point with you is that you have said several times you bought the game for the ridiculous price of 1.99. You then come here spouting pages of vitriol at matrix for increasing the price. But if you already bought the game at 1.99 WTF, exactly, is your problem ? Not only is no one asking you to buy it again - but you already have it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I thought Johan was quite calm considering it had been implied the pricing was to be considered illegal..

I'm not sure this niche thing holds up so well in the cold light of day..certain battles\wars maybe considered niche but not strategy games as awhole. I also have a feeling developers are put off from doing anything to far out there when it comes to the era they choose because of fears it wont sell so well. Yet I thought that was why the pricing was the way it was, due to low sales and it being a niche market.

Still nothing will change SLitherines stance here..so it's beating a dead horse.

I still support you in what you do and I'm looking forward to future releases..however when it comes to pricing of old\older games I just can't agree with it.

I think Johan nails it: if you make a game accessible and reasonably priced then they will come. Which is why Paradox can make extremely detailed and deep grand-strategy games and make money out of them.

I think Slitherine/Matrix have stuck themselves in a self fulfilling prophecy summed up in the quote "These detailed games are never going to sell to a mass market, but they do make money. They have their niche and this is where they need to stay."

It's just wrong. The niche only exists because zero effort is made to make games accessible to new players in terms of UI, Demos and pricing. Note that the two recent games which have paid attention to those areas (Panzer Corps and Unity of Command) have sold above expectations and are either on Steam or Steam Greenlight.

Want another example? XCOM. In gameplay terms it has all the fundamental elements of a wargame, they're just packaged with a slightly different wrapping. It sold massively. Look at Civilisation. Look at games like Eador, Heroes of Might and Magic, and King's Bounty. All of those games are turn-based strategy with some substantial depth to them (no, they aren't calculating the path a rifle cartridge takes from the factory to a soldier on the outskirts of Moscow, but on the player end there still some serious math that needs to be done). There is a fairly substantial mainstream market out there looking for detailed and accessible strategy games.

Wargames are only as much of a niche as they choose to be.

quote:

gameplay terms it has all the fundamental elements of a wargame, they're just packaged with a slightly different wrapping. It sold massively. Look at Civilisation. Look at games like Eador, Heroes of Might and Magic, and King's Bounty. All of those games are turn-based strategy with some substantial depth to them (no, they aren't calculating the path a rifle cartridge takes from the factory to a soldier on the outskirts of Moscow, but on the player end there still some serious math that needs to be done). There is a fairly substantial mainstream

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan

That sounds weird. I was never aware of any price drops of -90%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko
I put the games failure right in your lap.

Yeah, you are right.

In hindsight, the game should have been cancelled when we knew how bad Rise of Prussia was doing, and we saw the risks.

quote:

Victoria 2 is arguably as detailed as Pride of Nations, but had better interface & better performance

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Well - yes and no. Fundametally they are different, yours are shooting aliens or slaying dragons. Its simply a fact that those two things have a much bigger market - precisely because that is what they are about - than a simulation of the military situation in 1700's prussia. Thats entriely the point and you are to a large extent comparing apples with oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
Nah you've confused 'fundamentally' with 'superficially'.

What's a person playing XCOM doing? They're calculating risk with hit percentages and cover. They're positioning units to flank enemies and support each other. They're planing contingencies for enemy moves. Strip away all of the graphics and all they're really doing is moving counters on a grid. And those counters could be anything - soldiers and aliens, wizards and dragons, regiments and brigades. Fundamentally it's the same kind of game, you just have to present it the right way.